[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26340-26351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6766]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 032706A]


Notice of Availability of Final Stock Assessment Reports

AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:  Notice of availability; response to comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  NMFS has incorporated public comments into revisions of 
marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). These reports for 2005 
are now complete and available to the public.

ADDRESSES:  Send requests for copies of reports or revised guidelines 
to: Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Attn: Stock Assessments.
    Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs may be requested from Robyn 
Angliss, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, BIN 
15700, Seattle, WA 98115.
    Copies of the Atlantic Regional SARs may be requested from Gordon 
Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods 
Hole, MA 02543.
    Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Tina 
Fahy, Southwest Regional Office, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Long 
Beach, CA 90802-4213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Tom Eagle, Office of Protected 
Resources, 301-713-2322, ext. 105, e-mail [email protected]; Robyn 
Angliss, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 206-526-4032, e-mail 
[email protected]; Gordon Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science 
Center, e-mail [email protected]; or Tina Fahy, Southwest Regional 
Office, 562-980-4023, e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    Stock assessment reports are available via the Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/.

Background

    Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 
1361 et seq.) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS) to prepare stock assessments for each stock of marine mammals 
occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. These 
reports must contain information regarding the distribution and 
abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, estimates 
of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury from all sources, 
descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the 
status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995.
    The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually 
for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information 
is available, and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks. 
NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the 
stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in 
conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific Scientific Review 
Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required 
and revised reports in each of the three regions.

Comments and Responses

    The draft 2005 SARs were available for public review (70 FR 37091, 
June 28, 2005) for a 90-day comment period, which ended on September 
26, 2005. NMFS received letters from two Federal agencies (Marine 
Mammal Commission (Commission) and U.S. Geological Survey), one 
individual, and three organizations (Alaska Native Sea Otter and 
Steller Sea Lion Commission, Hawaii Longline Association, and Marine 
Conservation Alliance).
    The U.S. Geological Survey had no comments. The Commission's 
comments were directed to national issues and to individual regional 
reports. All other comments were directed toward regional reports.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments suggesting editorial or clarifying 
changes were included in the reports. Such editorial comments and 
responses to them are not included in the summary of comments and 
responses below. Other comments recommended additional survey effort, 
observer programs, or Take Reduction Plans. Comments on the need to 
develop additional Take Reduction Plans are not related to the SARs; 
therefore, these comments are not included below. Comments recommending 
additional data collection have been addressed in recent years. 
Responses to these comments indicated that NMFS' resources for surveys 
or observer programs were fully utilized, and no new large surveys or 
observer programs may be initiated until additional resources are 
available. Such comments on the 2005 SARs may not be included in the 
summary below because the responses have not changed.
    In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be 
considered for or incorporated in future revisions of the SAR rather 
than being incorporated into the final 2005 SARs. The delay is due to 
review of the reports by the regional SRGs. NMFS provides preliminary 
copies of updated SARs to SRGs prior to release for public review and 
comment. If a comment on the draft SAR results in a substantive change 
to the SAR, NMFS may discuss the comment and prospective change with 
the SRG at its next meeting prior to incorporating the change.

Comments on National Issues

    The Commission noted that the SARs addressed a number of issues 
inconsistently and recommended NMFS review the assessment issues, 
develop appropriate, precautionary policies for addressing them, and 
take the steps necessary to ensure consistent application of the 
policies among all regions and for all stocks of marine mammals.
    Comment 1: NMFS should ensure that information provided within the 
SARs is consistent among the contributions from various regional 
offices. For example, the summary tables for SARs from different 
regions should compile information in the same manner and should 
include not only estimates of populations size and mortality rates, but 
also the variances of those estimates.
    Response: NMFS agrees there should be a certain level of 
consistency in the tables, but there may be important differences in 
some regions that warrant inclusion in the summary tables. For example, 
subsistence harvest results in substantial mortality for some stocks in 
the Alaska region, and such harvests do not occur in the Atlantic or 
Pacific regions. The Alaska SARs, therefore, include a column in the 
summary table for subsistence mortality, and this column does not 
appear in the other two regional SARs. Similarly, the Atlantic and 
Pacific SARs include a column to identify which Science Center within 
NMFS produced the reports because four Science Centers (Alaska,

[[Page 26341]]

Northwest, Pacific Islands, and Southwest) contribute to the Pacific 
reports, and two Science Centers (Northeast and Southeast) contribute 
to the Atlantic reports. All of the reports in the Alaska region are 
prepared by the Alaska Fishery Science Center; therefore, such a column 
is not necessary for this regional report. Beginning with the 2006 
SARs, NMFS will ensure that there is a consistent core of information. 
However, other information in these tables would be optional for the 
authors to include.
    Comment 2: For population estimates, it would be useful to include 
[in the summary table] the year of the most recent survey and interval 
between repeat surveys for stocks that are monitored on a regular 
basis.
    Response: This history of surveys and estimates are included in the 
reports and will not be repeated in the summary table. The summary 
tables provide only certain key information, such as the stock 
identity, the statistics used to calculate the Potential Biological 
Removal (PBR) level, fishery and total human-caused mortality, and the 
status of the stock.
    Comment 3: The Commission reiterated a comment the agency had 
submitted in 2004 that in the absence of any information on sources of 
mortality, and without guidance from the SRGs, the precautionary 
principle should be followed, and the default stock status should be 
strategic until information is available to demonstrate otherwise. For 
example, all four Arctic seal species in Alaska waters are classified 
as non-strategic although very little information is available for any 
of these species, several of them are subject to substantial 
subsistence harvests, and they are all likely to be especially 
vulnerable to ongoing climate changes in the Arctic. In contrast, all 
stocks of beaked whales are classified as strategic even though the 
information on their status is similarly limited, they may also be 
vulnerable to climate change, and they may be sensitive to 
anthropogenic sound.
    Response: NMFS has consistently followed its guidelines in these 
examples even though the ice seals are classified as non-strategic 
whereas the beaked whales are classified as strategic. For species or 
stocks that are not listed as threatened or endangered, designated as 
depleted, or declining and likely to become depleted, threatened or 
endangered, the status (strategic or non-strategic) is determined by 
the level of human-caused mortality compared to the stock's PBR. The 
effects of environmental or climate variability do not affected its 
status under the MMPA unless the threat is sufficient to designate them 
as depleted, threatened or endangered.
    NMFS and the Alaska SRG discussed the status of ice seals, and 
these discussions resulted in an agreement that a strategic status for 
ice seals is not warranted at this time because the general experience 
of the experts in these discussions suggested that human-caused 
mortality was likely small related to the stocks' size (thus, mortality 
would not likely exceed PBR if abundance and total mortality of these 
stocks were estimated). Consequently, the ice seals were designated 
non-strategic. The status of ice seals was discussed at the January 
2006 meeting of the Alaska SRG, and the designation is being reviewed 
for the 2006 SARs.
    On the other hand, the authors of the beaked whale SARs, in 
consultation with the SRGs, noted that reported mortality of beaked 
whales incidental to human activities could well be an underestimate, 
and total mortality may exceed PBR for these stocks. Therefore, the 
beaked whales were designated as strategic stocks.
    Comment 4: A number of species of marine mammals are difficult to 
distinguish by visual observation in the field (e.g., dwarf and pygmy 
sperm whales, short- and long-finned pilot whales, and a variety of 
beaked whale species). NMFS has made progress using a variety of 
techniques to distinguish these animals and at present seems to rely on 
one or both of two approaches for estimating abundance of these 
animals: (1) Estimating a combined abundance for the entire group of 
species (e.g., pilot whales, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, and beaked 
whales along the Atlantic coast), or (2) estimating minimum abundance 
of each species based on the limited information available (e.g., 
beaked whales in the Gulf of Mexico). NMFS should use a consistent 
approach for these similar situations.
    Response: The approach used for beaked whales in the Gulf of Mexico 
will be discontinued in the 2006 reports. These reports will be 
prepared using approach (1) in the comment and will be consistent with 
other species that are difficult to distinguish in the field. When it 
becomes feasible to partition mortality and abundance by single stocks, 
NMFS will update the affected SARs accordingly.
    Comment 5: For a variety of reasons, animals involved in 
entanglements, ship strikes, stranding, etc., often are identified only 
by broad taxonomic categories (e.g., ``unidentified seal'' or 
``unidentified whale''). NMFS currently uses a variety of approaches to 
estimate serious injury/mortality rates for marine mammal stocks. In 
some cases, such as the western North Atlantic offshore stock of 
bottlenose dolphins, NMFS does not estimate serious injury/mortality if 
unidentified takes occur within a area of spatial overlap with other 
stocks. In other cases, such as the western North Atlantic stocks of 
pilot whales, a combined mortality estimate is derived for all species 
within a group. For stocks that generally are not difficult to 
distinguish, such as the western North Atlantic stocks of gray seals 
and hooded seals, mortality estimates often are based only on the 
identified animals, ignoring the potential contribution of unidentified 
animals to the true mortality.
    Response: While recognizing the desire for consistency throughout 
the SARs, NMFS may need to approach such issues differently for 
individual species and/or stocks. Recent research efforts have focused 
on developing methods to differentiate between short-finned and long-
finned pilot whales, as well as the bottlenose stocks, along the U.S. 
Atlantic coast to the degree our resources allow. In the 2006 draft 
short-finned and long-finned pilot whale SAR, strandings by species are 
indicated when this information is available, and the pygmy- and dwarf-
sperm whale SARs will likewise be modified to reflect strandings by 
species when such information is available. In cases where it is not 
possible to determine which species or stock is involved, we include 
this information in all species or stocks SARs that may be involved.
    Comment 6: The Commission repeated a comment from its letter with 
comments on the 2004 SARs and the updated guidelines regarding a 
provision in the guidelines indicating that in cases where mortality 
cannot be attributed to a specific stock, the mortality may be prorated 
based on the estimated stock abundances. The Commission recommended 
that NMFS develop alternatives to address such mortality in such a way 
that small, vulnerable stocks would not be subject to a 
disproportionate risk.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in its notice of 
availability of final 2004 SARs (70 FR 35397, June 20, 2005) by saying 
NMFS modified the guidelines to require a discussion of the potential 
for bias in stock-specific mortality in each affected report. NMFS 
clarifies that the proration would not be based on total stock 
abundance, rather it would prorate mortality based upon the abundances 
of the affected stocks in the appropriate geographic area when 
sufficient information on stock abundance is available.

[[Page 26342]]

    NMFS anticipates continuing to use such a proration in cases such 
as for false killer whales within and outside the Exclusive Economic 
Zone (EEZ) surrounding Hawaii (see response to Comment 8 for a more 
complete description of the approach). Such an approach does not 
increase the risk for a vulnerable stock and will continue to be used 
until there is sufficient information to assess stock structure and 
abundance of false killer whale occupying areas outside waters under 
the jurisdiction of the U.S. and the effect of fishery mortality from 
U.S. and other nations' fisheries on the affected stocks.
    Comment 7: The Commission repeated another comment from its letter 
on the 2004 SARs and updated guidelines related to PBR for declining 
stocks. The Commission recommended NMFS set PBR for declining stocks at 
zero and to develop a precautionary approach to the management of 
declining stocks and apply that approach consistently.
    Response: There were several comments on the 2004 SARs and revised 
guidelines related to PBR for declining stocks. NMFS responded to these 
comments saying, among other things, that zero may not always be the 
appropriate PBR for a declining stock. Furthermore, each situation 
where marine mammal stock abundances are declining has many case-
specific attributes, and a consistent, precautionary approach (e.g., 
PBR = 0) may not fit each case. Therefore, NMFS will continue to 
addresses these situations on a case-by-case basis.
    Comment 8: The Commission stated that NMFS seems to use two 
contradictory approaches for assessing the status of transboundary 
stocks. In the case of the Hawaiian stock of false killer whales, 
serious injury/mortality incidental to the Hawaii longline fishery is 
estimated for the portion of the stock that is found within the U.S. 
EEZ surrounding the Hawaiian Islands, and that mortality is compared to 
the PBR calculated for the population within that same EEZ. Mortality 
and serious injury in international waters are assumed to effect an 
undefined ``international'' false killer whale stock for which 
population size and mortality and serious injury are unknown. In the 
case of the harp seal in the Atlantic, which are harvested in large 
numbers in Canada and Greenland, mortality is estimated within the U.S. 
EEZ and compared to the total population size of harp seals in Canada.
    Response: The Commission's choice of example illustrates the need 
to use different approaches in assessing the status of, including the 
effects of human-caused mortality on, marine mammal stocks. In the case 
of false killer whales in the Pacific Ocean, the population structure 
within the entire ocean basin is unknown. However, NMFS has sufficient 
information to show that the animals occupying the Hawaiian EEZ, 
particularly those animals near the Hawaiian Islands, are from a 
different stock than animals occupying the Eastern Tropical Pacific 
Ocean and other international waters. Using the information available, 
including results of a survey of marine mammals within the Hawaiian 
EEZ, NMFS estimated the abundance and PBR for false killer whales in 
the area. NMFS also estimated U.S. fishery-related mortality and 
serious injury within the Hawaiian EEZ based upon data from the 
observer program on the portion of the pelagic longline fishery within 
the same area. Fisheries from other countries are not active within the 
EEZ; therefore, mortality and serious injury of marine mammals 
incidental to fishing within the EEZ is limited to those animals taken 
incidental to US fishing effort. Thus, the comparison of mortality and 
serious injury of false killer whales incidental to fishing within the 
EEZ to the PBR of this stock provides a reasonable assessment of the 
impact of incidental mortality and serious injury to the affected stock 
of false killer whales.
    Within international waters, however, stock structure, abundance, 
and total fishery-related mortality and serious injury (of the combined 
US and international fishing effort) are unknown. Furthermore, with a 
requirement to produce SARs for only those stocks of marine mammals 
that occur in waters under U.S. jurisdiction and a limited budget for 
marine mammal assessment, NMFS is not likely to obtain the information 
to identify population stocks correctly and estimate the abundance of 
each stock in international waters. NMFS is able to estimate mortality 
and serious injury of false killer whales incidental to U.S. fishing 
effort. This limited information is insufficient to assess the 
potential impact of fishery-related mortality on the unidentified 
stocks of marine mammals occupying international waters. Therefore, 
NMFS uses the information available to the maximum extent feasible to 
comply with the requirements of MMPA section 117.
    Harp seals in the Atlantic are in a very different situation. 
First, the harp seals in waters under US jurisdiction are primarily 
young males that seasonally occupy waters off New England and are part 
of the population from waters under Canadian jurisdiction. Estimates of 
abundance and mortality of this population of ice seals are available 
in Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere. Harvest levels of harp seals in 
Canada and Greenland are established in collaboration with a working 
group of experts from an international organization (International 
Council for the Exploration of the Sea), which includes members from 
the U.S. The harvest levels are estimated using a model that is more 
sophisticated than the relatively simple PBR approach, which includes 
mortality and serious injury of harp seals incidental to U.S. fishing 
effort.
    The approaches used in these two situations are, indeed, different. 
This difference reflects the differences in the biology and 
understanding of false killer whales on the one hand and harp seals on 
the other. The two approaches make use of the best scientific 
information available to assess the status of the affected stocks and 
the effects of human-caused mortality (including US fishery-related 
mortality and serious injury governed by MMPA section 118), and each 
has been discussed with the appropriate SRG as required by MMPA section 
117. Even though these two approaches are different, and seemingly 
contradictory, NMFS considers the differences appropriate.
    Comment 9: The Commission concluded their comments with two broad 
recommendations. First, noting that inconsistency in assessment and 
management of transboundary stocks may allow a level of mortality and 
serious injury that the affected stocks cannot withstand, the 
Commission recommended NMFS develop and implement an effective strategy 
for assessing mortality levels in transboundary stocks with priority 
given to those stocks that are harvested or known to interact 
significantly with domestic or international fisheries. Such a strategy 
would also require NMFS to conduct research to determine the boundaries 
of transboundary stocks and to estimate their population size, trend, 
mortality, and serious injury.
    Second, after noting that in many instances the level of observer 
coverage was very low and that the resulting information may contain 
significant bias and error, the Commission recommended (in a 
reiteration of a comment the Commission made on the 2003 SARs) that 
NMFS establish standards for observer coverage and implement the 
changes needed to achieve those standards.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the most reliable approach to governing 
interactions between marine mammals and commercial fishing 
(domestically

[[Page 26343]]

and internationally) includes having sufficient information to make 
fully informed decisions. Related to the first part of this comment, 
NMFS stated in its original guidelines (Barlow, et al., 1995. U.S. 
Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: Guidelines for Preparation, 
Background, and a Summary of the 1995 Assessments. NOAA Technical 
Memorandum NMFS-OPR-95-6.), ``In transboundary situations where a 
stock's range spans international boundaries or the boundary of the 
U.S., the best approach is to establish an international management 
agreement for the species.'' The guidelines have been revised twice 
since 1995, and this statement has remained in place. The guidelines 
also include alternative approaches to address transboundary stocks 
when the information necessary for the best approach is not available.
    In its response to the Commission's comments on the 2003 SARs, NMFS 
stated that the agency was preparing a document to identify the 
resource requirements for adequate protected species stock assessments, 
and the document would describe desired levels of data quality, 
quantity, and timeliness (69 FR 54262, September 8, 2004). The 
requirements document has been completed (Merrick et al., 2004. A 
Requirements Plan for Improving the Understanding of the Status of U.S. 
Protected Marine Species: Report of the NOAA Fisheries Task Force for 
Improving Marine Mammal and Turtle Stock Assessments. NOAA Technical 
Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-63) and is available on the Internet at the 
following location: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. In the 
requirements plan, NMFS describes the current (at the time of 
publication) state of the information for marine mammal and turtle 
stock assessment and includes an estimate of the resources (staff and 
survey time) required to achieve the new standards for improved stock 
assessment. No new major abundance surveys or observer program could be 
initiated until additional resources are available.

Comments on Alaska Regional Reports

    Comment 10: Descriptions of the fisheries in the SARs are 
inconsistent and confusing. In some SARs, fisheries are described in 
the aggregate, while in other SARs, fisheries are listed separately by 
geography, gear type, and target species.
    Response: SARs for some marine mammal stocks are routinely reviewed 
and updated every year, while SARs for other stocks are updated every 3 
years or when there is substantial new information that must be added 
to the SARs. Thus, the fishery definitions in the 2005 draft SARs have 
been updated for some stocks, but not for others. NMFS will address 
fishery descriptions for remaining stocks during the next 2 years.
    Comment 11: The SARs use an inconsistent time period for observer 
data. For instance, in SARs for some stocks, observer data from 1999-
2003 are used. For other stocks, a different time period is used, such 
as 1994-98 for the Pacific white-sided dolphin and 1990-96 data for 
Southeast Alaska harbor seals.
    Response: SARs are revised on a rotating schedule, so not all SARs 
will include data from the same period of time. The SAR for the Pacific 
white-sided dolphin has not been updated in a few years; the most 
current data available during the last revision of that SAR was 1994-
98. Similarly, the SAR for harbor seals, Southeast Alaska stock, is 
based upon the most current information from fisheries there. Also, see 
response to Comment 10.
    Comment 12: It is not clear why observer data from 2004 were not 
used in the 2005 draft SARs.
    Response: It takes approximately a full year to develop new, final 
SARs. The draft SARs for 2005 were prepared in fall of 2004; at that 
time, data for 2003 were the most current data available. Observer data 
for 2004 became available in 2005 and will be incorporated in the draft 
SARs for 2006, which are currently under preparation.
    Comment 13: The largest component of the total mortality for 
Steller sea lions is the 14.5 mean annual mortalities in the Prince 
William Sound salmon drift gillnet fishery. These data are 14 years 
old. Not only are such data suspect because fishing practices have 
likely changed, but the population level of Steller sea lions in the 
Prince William Sound area has decreased, making interactions less 
likely. Further, Prince William Sound is on the edge of the western 
stock range, and some portion of the 14.5 animals are likely from the 
eastern Steller sea lion stock.
    Response: While the observer data for Prince William Sound that 
resulted in the mean annual mortality rate of 14.5 Steller sea lions 
are dated, they remain the best information available on the level of 
take in this fishery and will be used in the analyses for the List of 
Fisheries (LOF) until better data on this fishery are collected. Due to 
funding constraints, the rotating observer program currently 
responsible for collecting data on marine mammal serious injury and 
mortality rates in state fisheries will only be able to observe 
fisheries approximately once every few decades. Thus, NMFS continues to 
rely on dated information for a number of state fisheries when 
analyzing the total level of mortality and serious injury of marine 
mammals throughout Alaska.
    Comment 14: There is a double-counting of mortalities in two 
instances where a single incidental mortality in a fishery is 
attributed to two stocks and results in two distinct mortalities. This 
double-counting is a problem for the humpback whale take in the Bering 
Sea/Aleutian Island that occurred incidental to the Bering Sea/Aleutian 
Island sablefish pot fishery, the killer whale take that occurred in 
the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island turbot longline fishery, and the killer 
whale take that occurred in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island Pacific cod 
longline fishery. The estimated fishing mortality levels should be 
reduced by 50 percent.
    Response: Because the humpback whale and killer whale mortalities 
occurred in an area where more than one stock of these species overlap, 
assignment of the mortalities to a single stock could not be 
accomplished for the 2005 draft SARs. There are two procedural options 
for assigning these mortalities: (1) Pro-rate the mortalities to each 
stock using the proportion of each stock in the area when there 
mortalities occurred, (2) assess the impacts of the mortality on each 
stock. Because option (1) requires information on relative abundance of 
each stock in the vicinity of the incidental mortality, and this 
information is not available, this approach cannot be pursued. Thus, 
the mortalities are included in the SARs for each stock. The report was 
revised to make it clear that the mortality information shows up in 
reports for both stocks and cannot be summed to estimate a total take 
level for all killer whale stocks.
    Comment 15: NMFS stated in February 2005 that genetics of the 
killer whales taken incidental to the commercial fisheries would be 
analyzed. What are the results of that analysis?
    Response: NMFS has completed the genetics analysis of the samples 
taken from killer whales that were killed incidental to fisheries from 
1999-2003. The killer whale mortality in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island 
flatfish trawl fishery was a resident killer whale. Both killer whale 
mortalities in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery 
were transient killer whales. The killer whale mortality in the Bering 
Sea/Aleutian Island Pacific cod longline fishery was a resident killer 
whale. No samples were taken from the killer whale mortality that 
occurred incidental

[[Page 26344]]

to the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island turbot longline fishery; thus, the 
impact of this mortality will be assessed as if it came from either 
stock. The killer whale SARs will be updated with the new genetics 
information in 2006.
    Comment 16: The Perez document on which the take estimates are 
based uses catch as an approximation of effort. This is unfounded, as 
effort can be expressed as days fished, particularly for those 
fisheries with a high level of observer coverage. The North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Scientific and Statistical 
Committee of the Council recommended that NMFS consider using direct 
effort data in lieu of catch. NMFS has been doggedly unresponsive.
    Response: Information on effort as measured by the number of hooks, 
number of hauls, days fished, etc. is available for vessels that are 
observed. However, there is no such measure for unobserved vessels. 
Because all vessels must report catch, that is the only data that can 
be used, for all vessels, seasons, and areas, to determine relative 
levels of effort. Should another measure of effort become available 
that can be used for all vessels, seasons, and areas, NMFS will 
consider modifying the analytical approach.
    Comment 17: The commenter states that 94 percent of the Pacific cod 
longline harvest comes from observed vessels, with 66 percent of the 
catch in sampled hauls. According to the 2000 biological opinion for 
the groundfish fishery, this fishery is 110 percent observed. How can 
it be the case that the observer coverage provided in the SARs be 27-80 
percent?
    Response: NMFS has reviewed the 2000 biological opinion and 
believes
    that the table to which the commenter is referring is Table 6.4. 
The table in the biological opinion presents effort calculated based on 
the total groundfish catch by the vessel when an observer was on board, 
regardless of how many hauls on that vessel were randomly selected as 
being ``monitored'' by the observer. In contrast, the effort used in 
calculations of estimated marine mammal serious injury/mortality is 
based on the percent of total catch in the randomly selected 
``monitored'' hauls. Thus, because the effort was calculated 
differently for the purposes of this table and for the calculations of 
serious injury/mortality levels, it is to be expected that there are 
differences in the percent effort using the two different approaches. 
In some situations in that table, there is a mismatch of the data 
between the two databases that results in an apparent 110 percent 
coverage; there is a note at the bottom of the table (marked with an 
asterisk) to address this problem.
    Comment 18: SARs for various stocks of marine mammals show 
inconsistent observer coverage ranges. For instance, the 2005 SAR for 
Pacific white-sided dolphins indicates that the coverage for the 
aggregated Bering Sea/Aleutians Islands (BSAI) longline fishery is 27-
80 percent. However, for other stocks (Steller sea lion, western 
stock), the Pacific cod longline fishery is identified as having 29.6-
percent observer coverage.
    Response: The SAR for Pacific white-sided dolphins has not been 
updated since 2003; at this time, the SAR for that species includes 
information on the combined groundfish longline fisheries and states 
that the observer coverage ranged between 27-80 percent during the 
period 1994-1998. The SAR for the western stock of Steller sea lions 
covers the period 1999-2003, and provides information on the observer 
coverage for the Pacific cod longline fishery separate from other types 
of groundfish longline fisheries. Because the SARs for these species 
differ in what years of data are included, and in how the fisheries are 
aggregated, the levels of observer coverage cannot be directly 
compared.
    Comment 19: How does the longline fleet go from being in the range 
of 80 percent observed for the aggregate fisheries to less than 30 
percent observed for the BSAI turbot longline fishery? Which BSAI 
longline fishery was observed at 80 percent?
    Response: In 1990, 80 percent of the catch for the aggregated 
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish longline was observed. Because 
data are not available to determine the target fishery in 1990, it is 
not possible to determine observer coverage for different components of 
the longline fishery in that year. As SARs are updated, these old data 
will be replaced with current information on levels of observer 
coverage.
    Comment 20: The BSAI turbot longline fishery should not be included 
in the tables in the SARs that document marine mammal take. The fishery 
should not be included in the tables due to (1) low frequency of lethal 
take, (2) no listed incidence of interactions with marine mammals other 
than killer whales, (3) the small magnitude of the fishery, (4) the 
declining participation and catch, and (5) the outlook for the fishery 
is to decrease in total catch and effort.
    Response: One killer whale was observed to be killed incidental to 
the BSAI turbot longline fishery in 1999. As the SARs use the most 
recent 5 years of information to calculate human-related mortality and 
serious injury information, it is appropriate to include this mortality 
in the relevant killer whale SARs for 2005. This mortality will not be 
included in the estimated total mortality levels calculated in the SARs 
for 2006, and text that describes the historical take will include 
relevant statements about trends in the fishery.
    Comment 21: NMFS uses a 5-year window for looking at marine mammal 
interactions with a fishery. The BSAI turbot longline fishery has one 
take (1999) in 5 years. If there were no takes in 2004, then there are 
no takes in the most recent 5-year window.
    Response: The draft SARs were prepared during the fall of 2004, 
when only 1999-2003 observer data were available. Thus, the one killer 
whale take is included in the SARs for 2005. The calculation of the 
total human-related mortality rate for killer whales will exclude this 
take in the SAR for 2006.
    Comment 22: The number of vessels that actually participate in the 
fishery is small and is considerably less than the 36 vessels indicated 
in the LOF. In 2004, only 6 vessels had catches greater than 100mt.
    Response: NMFS will review available information on the number of 
vessels in the flatfish trawl fishery, and other fisheries, and will 
update the information in the 2006 SARs.
    Comment 23: The vessels that participate in the hook and line 
fishery are all catcher-processor vessels and are all generally 
observed when participating in the turbot fishery. Vessels over 125 
feet (38 m) long have 100-percent observer coverage Vessels between 60-
125 feet (18-38 m) long have 30-percent observer coverage, except these 
vessels must have an observer onboard at all times during at least one 
fishing trip in that calendar quarter and at all times during at least 
one fishing trip in that calendar quarter for each of the groundfish 
categories. Thus, because most vessels make only one turbot trip, the 
net effect of the regulation is that every turbot trip is observed.
    Response: Observers are placed on a vessel based on what the 
captain intends to catch during that trip. However, the Catch 
Accounting System, on which the fishery definitions in the LOF are 
based, does not use what the captain intends to catch as the target 
species for that trip. Instead, the target species for that vessel's 
trip is determined based on what the vessel actually catches in its 
hauls. Thus, if a captain is targeting flatfish, but the catch is 
predominantly turbot, that vessel is assigned to the turbot fishery.

[[Page 26345]]

The percent of observer coverage will reflect a combination of the 
coverage on those vessels whose captains state that they are targeting 
turbot and actually catch turbot, and the coverage on vessels whose 
captains state that they are targeting some other species, but catch 
predominantly turbot.
    Comment 24: The figure of 7 percent reproduction rate for humpback 
whales is inflated.
    Response: The best available scientific information indicates the 
rates of increase of humpback whale populations range from 7 percent to 
10 percent for the North Pacific population, and 8.8 percent to 14 
percent for other populations of humpbacks. The estimate of 7 percent 
is based on a study on the humpback whales in the Hawaii breeding 
grounds (Mobley et al., 2001) and is believed to be a reasonable 
estimate of the current rate of increase of the population; thus, it is 
an appropriately conservative estimate of the maximum theoretical rate 
of increase for humpback whales for calculating PBR.
    Comment 25: The SARs include figures that are 8 years old. The U.S. 
was a far different place 8 years ago than now, and the SARs should be 
updated to include more recent information.
    Response: The information in the SARs on abundance, trends in 
abundance, and human-related mortality are the best information 
currently available for that stock. In many cases, the ``best 
information'' has been collected within the past 5 years. However, 
there are other situations in which the ``best information'' was 
collected 8 or more years ago. This information will be retained in the 
SARs until better information is collected, or until there is a strong, 
specific reason for discrediting the information.
    Comment 26: For all Alaska stocks, the reports should clarify the 
meaning of ``N/A'' for observer coverage. Presumably, N/A indicates 
that the exact level of observer coverage is unknown and that some 
portion of the fishery was observed.
    Response: The use of N/A in the tables summarizing incidental 
mortality and serious injury means that data are not available. Data 
may not be available due to one of two situations: (1) The fishery was 
observed, but an estimate of the level of coverage was not available 
when the SAR was developed or (2) the data result from logbooks, self-
reports, or strandings, so listing observer coverage is not possible. 
NMFS will explore alternative methods of distinguishing between these 
situations in the 2006 SARs.
    Comment 27: Until observer programs are instituted for Southeast 
Alaska fisheries, the status of many stocks of marine mammals in 
Southeast Alaska cannot be adequately evaluated.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Over time, NMFS plans to implement observer 
programs for all fisheries in Southeast Alaska that are currently known 
or suspected to have a moderate level of serious injury and mortality 
of marine mammals as future funding levels allow.
    Comment 28: The report for the western stock of Steller sea lions 
should explain why pups and non-pups were counted separately, using 
different methods. The report should clarify whether pups were counted 
at all rookeries or if, in fact, some rookeries were not counted 
(resulting in a minimum count).
    Response: The SAR will be updated to reflect this request in 2006.
    Comment 29: It is not clear how many Steller sea lions that strand 
have bullet wounds or whether these mortalities/serious injuries are 
reported under subsistence hunting (i.e. struck and lost). They are not 
listed under potential fishery interactions.
    Response: Steller sea lions with bullet wound are occasionally 
observed and reported to NMFS. Subsistence harvest of Steller sea lions 
by Alaska Natives is permitted, and the numbers of animals killed or 
struck but lost are reported in the SARs in the ``Other mortality'' 
section. Shooting Steller sea lions, outside of a subsistence harvest, 
is a direct violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and may be subject to legal action. The 
NOAA Office for Law Enforcement successfully prosecuted two illegal 
shootings of Steller sea lions in 1998. However, the agency assumes, 
unless proven otherwise, that Steller sea lions observed with bullet 
wounds are those ``struck but lost'' in the course of the legal, Alaska 
Native subsistence harvest. The Alaska SRG has recommended changing 
this practice, as Steller sea lion observed with bullet wounds may not 
have been targeted by the subsistence harvest. NMFS will consider how 
best to report information about Steller sea lions observed with bullet 
wounds in the 2006 SARs.
    Comment 30: The minimum count for the eastern stock of Steller sea 
lions is only 2.5 percent lower than the population estimate based on 
pup counts and a correction factor. Either the minimum count includes 
almost every individual, which seems unlikely, or the correction factor 
applied to pup counts is unexpectedly low.
    Response: An abundance estimate based on a pup count multiplied by 
the correction factor is likely to be an underestimate because the 
correction factor is known to be conservative because factor is based 
on a stable population (0 growth rate). The eastern Steller sea lion 
stock is actually growing about 3 percent per year.
    Comment 31: The counts in Table 4 for the SAR for the eastern stock 
of Steller sea lions are presumably uncorrected counts, which should be 
indicated in the text.
    Response: The term ``counts'' is used consistently to refer to raw, 
uncorrected counts of individuals. It is not necessary to change the 
text for the caption of Table 4.
    Comment 32: The 4.5 expansion factor that has been applied to the 
count of northern fur seal pups in order to estimate the population 
size is based on a historical sex-age distribution that may no longer 
be valid. The factor should be validated or updated, or an alternative 
method for estimating population size should be used.
    Response: The 4.5 expansion factor for northern fur seals is based 
on an analysis of the life history of the population many years ago; 
NMFS agrees that this expansion factor should be updated. In 2005, NMFS 
initiated an expanded study on northern fur seals in order to determine 
the cause of the stock's decline. The results of these studies may, 
within several years, allow NMFS to update the expansion factor.
    Comment 33: Under ``Fisheries Information'', the SAR for northern 
fur seals indicates that several fisheries which are known to interact 
with northern fur seals have not been observed. For that reason, the 
resulting fishery mortality estimate should be considered an 
underestimate. However, the text currently states that the estimate is 
``conservative'', which can been interpreted in different ways and may 
be misleading in a management context. Consider revising the text to 
avoid confusion.
    Response: The text will be reviewed and revised in a future draft 
if appropriate.
    Comment 34: The subsistence harvest of juvenile male northern fur 
seals has not been terminated, as the text of the SAR suggests.
    Response: The commenter is correct. Juvenile male northern fur 
seals are taken in an Alaska Native subsistence harvest. The SAR will 
be reviewed and updated in 2006 to eliminate confusing language.
    Comment 35: The SARs for harbor seals have not been updated since 
1998 and should be updated to include new

[[Page 26346]]

information, particularly new information on stock structure. If a 
decision on the stock structure is still forthcoming from the 
comanagement committee, the SARs should be developed to show 
prospective stocks. Until this action is taken, it is not possible to 
evaluate the status of harbor seals with regard to fisheries, 
subsistence harvest, or other potential conservation issues.
    Response: The SARs for Alaska harbor seals are currently based on a 
stock structure that is known to be incorrect. NMFS is actively working 
with our partners in the comanagement community to identify groups of 
harbor seals that can be called ``stocks'' under the MMPA. Significant 
progress towards identifying stocks has occurred, and NMFS remains 
hopeful that stock structure can be revised soon. In the interim, the 
Alaska Scientific Review Group has recommended that the SARs for Alaska 
harbor seals be updated with new information on abundance and human-
related mortality levels using the existing stock structure. NMFS will 
make these updates in the 2006 SARs.
    Comment 36: At this time, there are no current abundance estimates 
for spotted seals, bearded seals, ringed seals, or ribbon seals. In 
addition, there is a subsistence harvest of each species, and each 
species is very likely to be vulnerable to changes in climate. NMFS 
should develop and implement the research needed to provide a better, 
more reliable, basis for management of these 4 species of ice seals.
    Response: NMFS agrees that research is needed to provide a better 
basis for management of these species. Research project were initiated 
in 2005 using funds appropriated under the ``Alaska Seals and Steller 
Sea Lions'' line item. These studies will be continued in FY 2006, as 
funding allows.
    Comment 37: The 43-72 percent population declines described for 
ringed seals are substantial and are cause for concern. Although these 
may reflect changes in survey timing, they may also be a result of a 
real decline in the population. There is a longstanding concern about 
the lack of research on ringed seals.
    Response: NMFS agrees. At this time, it is not possible to 
distinguish between the possibility that the differences in counts are 
due to changes in abundance or changes in methods.
    Comment 38: The Moulton et al. (2002) study that documents lack of 
impact of industrial activity on ringed seal distribution in the 
Beaufort Sea may be relevant only in areas of low ringed seal density. 
The SAR should be amended to state that the results may not apply 
throughout the range of ringed seals.
    Response: NMFS updated the text to acknowledge that the study may 
not be applicable throughout the range of the species.
    Comment 39: The correction factor used for estimating abundance of 
the Beaufort Sea stock of beluga whales appears to be arbitrary in 
spite of the existence of empirically derived correction factors. The 
basis for rejecting the empirically derived factors was not explained. 
The use of an arbitrary correction factor results in an underestimate 
of the variance of the population estimate because the uncertainty 
about the correction factor is not incorporated into the variance of 
the abundance estimate. As a result, the minimum population estimate of 
the stock (Nmin) may be overestimated.
    Response: The correction factor (CF) used for estimating abundance 
of the Beaufort Sea stock of beluga whales was a consensus opinion from 
a workshop on the Beaufort Sea beluga (see Duvall, 1993), which 
reviewed data from tagging experiments done in Bristol Bay and a paired 
observer study conducted on the population in 1985. This CF has been 
used with subsequent survey data to maintain consistency. Although the 
CF of 2 appears to be arbitrary, it was intended to be conservative 
and, in fact, low compared to empirically derived CFs for similar 
surveys ranging from 2.75 to 3.5. Although variance in the abundance 
estimate may be underestimated, the low CF reduces the likelihood that 
Nmin is an overestimate.
    Comment 40: The use of a 1.0-recovery factor for the eastern 
Chukchi Sea and Bering Sea stocks seems unwarranted because population 
estimates are poor and it is difficult to conclude that the population 
is stable. A more precautionary approach would be to classify the 
status of the stock as ``unknown'' and use the default recovery factor 
of 0.5.
    Response: NMFS will consider this comment when the SAR for this 
stock is next reviewed and will discuss it with the SRG.
    Comment 41: As stated in previous years, NMFS should use a recovery 
factor of 0.1 in the calculation of the PBR level for the Cook Inlet 
beluga whale stock. Use of a recovery factor of 0.3 is more 
inappropriate now than it was in 2001 because the population has shown 
no signs of recovery despite only a few known subsistence takes during 
the past seven years.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the available data indicate that 
no recovery of this population is evident, despite careful regulation 
of the subsistence harvest. NMFS has initiated a status review of this 
stock to evaluate whether the stock should be listed as ``endangered'' 
or ``threatened'' under the ESA and will consider changing the recovery 
factor once the status review is completed.
    Comment 42: The SAR for the eastern North Pacific Alaska resident 
stock should indicate whether shooting of killer whales is still a 
problem in Alaska.
    Response: NMFS will review the report and may (as appropriate) 
update the text in a future revision to reflect the current state of 
knowledge on this issue.
    Comment 43: Mortality estimates for the eastern North Pacific, Gulf 
of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock of killer 
whales approach the PBR level for this stock and would exceed the PBR 
level if the estimate from the line-transect surveys was used for Nmin 
in lieu of the Nmin from photo-identification. The potential for 
unsustainable mortality suggests a high priority for further research 
on this stock of transient killer whales.
    Response: NMFS has implemented a large killer whale research 
program for the past three years and believes that this program will 
provide the information needed to determine whether the level of 
serious injury and mortality incidental to commercial fishing is 
sufficiently high to be a conservation concern.
    Comment 44: The table of strandings and entanglements provided for 
the gray whale SAR is useful, and similar tables should be considered 
for other stocks.
    Response: NMFS agrees, and will continue to provide this detail on 
strandings and entanglements for those stocks, such as gray whales, 
central North Pacific humpback whales, and bowhead whales, where the 
majority of information on human-related serious injury and mortality 
is gleaned through stranding reports.
    Comment 45: Noise pollution and low-frequency sonar are listed as 
concerns for humpback and beaked whale stocks, but should also be 
listed as concerns for other species that are likely to be affected by 
anthropogenic noise.
    Response: The intent of the habitat sections for SARs is to provide 
information on issues that are, or highly likely to be, habitat 
concerns. Potential impacts of anthropogenic noise are appropriately 
identified for beaked whales, as beaked whales are known to have died 
after coming in contact with certain types of sound. Similarly, 
humpback whales in Hawaii were documented to exhibit subtle changes in 
behavior in response to low frequency

[[Page 26347]]

sound, and this is documented in the SARs for this species. 
Extrapolation of this information to other species for which little 
information exists on the impacts of sound, or any other anthropogenic 
impact, is not appropriate.
    Comment 46: The western North Pacific humpback SAR should include 
text describing the SPLASH humpback whale research program.
    Response: NMFS agrees and will update the text in the next revision 
of this SAR.
    Comment 47: In the analysis of marine mammal bycatch data, 
mortalities that occurred in non-observed fishery sets should not be 
combined with mortalities that were observed because this will 
exaggerate the number of takes with a procedure that is biased and 
scientifically unsound.
    Response: See response to Comment 19 in the final List of Fisheries 
(71 FR 247; 4 January 2006) for a very detailed response to the same 
comment. The analysis of bycatch is stratified into many different 
strata, including fishery, statistical fishing area, etc. Estimates of 
bycatch are calculated for each individual stratum using data from 
monitored hauls. However, if the observer reported a serious injury or 
mortality incidental to a non-monitored haul, and there were no serious 
injuries or mortalities from monitored hauls in that strata, the report 
in a non-monitored haul is used as the estimate of serious injury and 
mortality for that stratum. Data from non-monitored hauls are not 
extrapolated using the ratio estimation approach but are simply added 
to an extrapolation using observer data from monitored hauls.
    Comment 48: NMFS calculates the confidence limits for the estimate 
of marine mammal bycatch using a formula that results in negative 
numbers. This is not a reasonable result, as there cannot be a negative 
bycatch of marine mammals.
    Response: See response to Comment 16 in the final List of Fisheries 
(71 FR 247; January 4, 2006). NMFS has revised the formula used for 
calculating confidence limits. The recent change from the use of the 
normal distribution to the use of a natural-log transformation to 
eliminate the occasional problem of having a negative lower confidence 
limit around an estimated bycatch rate.
    Comment 49: In the draft 2005 SARs, NMFS asserts there are new, 
discrete populations of resident killer whales in Alaska. NMFS fails to 
provide the appropriate and necessary analyses to support this 
determination.
    Response: It is standard procedure for SARs to summarize and 
provide conclusions from primary analyses that are reported elsewhere. 
It would not be appropriate to bring all the details of primary 
analyses into the SARs. NMFS, therefore, has provided the appropriate 
and necessary analyses through reference to scientific papers that 
confirm these are discrete populations. The draft SAR addresses these 
details by reference to the relevant published literature on this topic
    Comment 50: NMFS' calculation of Nmin for the Alaska resident stock 
of killer whales is questionable. NMFS has excluded 600 photographs 
because the photographs have not been matched for population grouping. 
NMFS has excluded an additional 68 animals because the data are 10 
years old. These decisions are arbitrary.
    Response: The SAR refers to approximately 600 individuals 
photographed in studies by the North Gulf Oceanic Society. Analyses of 
those photographs were not finalized and have not been reconciled with 
the NMFS collection. It is likely there will be a large number of 
duplicates between these independent datasets. Therefore, it would not 
be correct to simply add the 600 to the total number of whales. Once 
the two datasets are matched and reconciled, it will be possible to add 
these data to the abundance estimate. The 10-year old data were 
excluded because there is no way of discerning whether any of those 68 
whales are still alive; thus, NMFS has determined not to include them 
in the current estimate of Nmin.
    Comment 51: The SAR for the Alaska resident stock of killer whales 
states that the population has been increasing at 3.3 percent annually 
for 18 years. It also states that NMFS lacks the data to determine if 
the population is increasing or decreasing and classifies the stock 
status as uncertain, assigning it a recovery factor of 0.5. Eighteen 
years of annual population increases is sufficient evidence of a 
population trend. This species should be assigned a recovery factor of 
1.0.
    Response: The draft 2005 SARS define the Alaska resident stock as 
resident killer whales occurring between central Southeast Alaska and 
the Bering Sea. The draft 2005 SARs cite an observed increase of 3.3 
percent for the very small portion of the Alaska resident stock that is 
consistently seen in Prince William Sound in the summer. An observed 
rate of increase in a very small portion of the stock's range cannot be 
interpreted to apply to the entire stock and cannot be used to justify 
a higher recovery factor. When the entire range of the stock is 
considered, both the overall rate of increase and the status is 
considered ``unknown''. The guidelines for preparing SARs state that a 
0.5 recovery factor is appropriate for stocks of unknown status. The 
Alaska SRG has recently reviewed the SARs for killer whale stocks and 
has not recommended an alternative recovery factor for any killer whale 
stock.
    Comment 52: Table 30 in the Alaska resident SAR asserts that the 
BSAI Pollock trawl fishery had four estimated mortalities over 5 years, 
which translates to a mean annual mortality level of 0.61 animals. The 
same table indicates that the BSAI Greenland turbot fishery had three 
mortalities over 5 years, which translates to a mean annual mortality 
level of 0.6 animals. It is statistically not possible for fewer total 
mortalities to translate into the same mean annual mortality rate. 
NMFS' calculations of fishery related mortality levels are clearly 
erroneous.
    Response: There is an error in Table 30 of the draft SARs, but no 
error in the underlying analysis. The estimated mortality for the BSAI 
pollock trawl fishery in 1999 was 1 (not 2) which translates to a 5-
year average of 0.61. Data for the turbot longline fishery and the cod 
longline fishery (5-year average of 0.84 based on four mortalities) 
were correctly used; however, there was a typographical error in one 
table.
    Comment 53: In the draft 2005 SARs, NMFS asserts there are new, 
discrete populations of transient killer whales in Alaska. NMFS fails 
to provide the appropriate and necessary analyses to support this 
determination. Serious questions exist regarding the extent of genetic 
variability and space time separation.
    Response: The three transient killer whale populations have fixed 
mtDNA differences (which is a very strong difference) and also have 
significant differences in microsatellite nuclear DNA. These are 
conclusive results. As with the resident killer whales, NMFS has 
provided the appropriate and necessary analyses through reference to 
the scientific papers that confirm these are discrete populations.
    Comment 54: The SAR admits that the stock has been increasing at 7-
10 percent annually for many years. Given this increase, the abundance 
is 1.4-1.6 times the size of the early 1990s population. Thus, the Nmin 
value for this stock is greatly underestimated.
    Response: Although this comment was in a section of a public 
comment letter entitled ``Eastern North Pacific transient stock of 
killer whales'', NMFS suspects that the comment refers to the central 
North Pacific stock of humpback

[[Page 26348]]

whales and responds accordingly. The Nmin for the central North Pacific 
stock of humpback whales is based on data from the early 1990s because 
that was the last time that photographs were taken of humpback whales 
throughout the range of humpback whales in the North Pacific Ocean. It 
is true that the abundance estimate is likely conservative, as the 
stock is known to have increased 7 percent annually from 1993-2000. A 
major research effort on North Pacific humpback whales was initiated in 
2004 and will conclude in 2006. This research effort will likely result 
in important information on abundance and stock structure of humpback 
whales in the North Pacific, both of which will have implications to 
the Nmin value. NMFS will update the Nmin for this stock when the new 
information from the recent efforts is published.
    Comment 55: The draft stock assessment for the central North 
Pacific stock of humpback whales notes that there may be as many as six 
subpopulations of humpback whales on the wintering grounds. The draft 
SAR for the western North Pacific stock of humpback whales admits there 
is considerable overlap between the ranges of the central North Pacific 
and western North Pacific stocks. Further, NMFS admits the agency is 
unable to determine to which stock a sighted whale should be assigned. 
If NMFS is unable to determine to which stock a whale should be 
assigned, how will NMFS arrive at a defensible population estimate of 
the individual stocks?
    Response: Although there is considerable overlap of the western and 
central stocks of North Pacific humpback whales on their feeding 
grounds in Alaska, there is essentially no overlap on their winter/
breeding grounds in Japan and Hawaii, respectively. Thus, the abundance 
estimates for these stocks will likely come from data collected on 
their winter grounds. Because the stocks are currently identified on 
the basis of their winter grounds, these abundance estimates are 
appropriate. It is difficult to assign some individual whales, sighted 
in some areas of Alaska, to their correct winter/breeding area stock. 
The basin-wide humpback whale research project mentioned in the 
response to Comment 54 is an on-going research program designed to help 
answer these types of questions. Results from this research will be 
incorporated into the SARs as soon as practicable.
    Comment 56: The BSAI pollock trawl fishery and the Bering Sea 
sablefish pot fishery each have one estimated mortality over the past 5 
years, but the mean annual mortality rates are different. Such a result 
shows the flaws in the NMFS methodology and conclusions.
    Response: There is a difference in the analytical approach for 
these two fisheries that explains why a single mortality in 5 years 
results in a different estimated annual mortality level for the two 
fisheries. The single mortality/serious injury in the Bering Sea 
sablefish pot fishery was not seen during a monitored haul; therefore, 
it is a minimum count of the mortality/serious injury that occurred 
incidental to this fishery and is simply divided by five to obtain an 
average annual mortality rate over 5 years. Because the mortality in 
the pollock trawl fishery was observed in a monitored haul, the mean 
annual mortality level is calculated by a more complicated formula that 
takes into consideration the observer effort in each year, 1999-2003. 
Thus, the analysis appropriately accounts for differences in the types 
of data available and adjusts the formulae accordingly.
    Comment 57: Tables 42, 43, and 44 in the report that describe the 
level of mortality and serious injury of central North Pacific humpback 
whales do not provide any way to arrive at the estimated minimum 
fishery induced mortality level of 2.6 for the northern portion of the 
stock, and 2.7 for the southeast portion of the stock. Further, Table 
42 claims that the whales involved in a commercial fishery interaction 
were from the central stock, while Table 44 admits that the stock 
identification is unknown. Moreover, the SAR attributes the same 
mortality to both the northern portion of the stock and to the 
southeast Alaska portion.
    Response: NMFS agrees that it can be challenging to follow the 
compilation of information on serious injuries and mortalities of 
humpback whales in the central North Pacific stock. Table 42 includes 
the information obtained for observer programs. Table 43 includes the 
raw data on individual strandings and entanglements of humpback whales. 
Table 44 summarizes the stranding and entanglement data. Table 45 adds 
the values in Table 42 and the values in Table 44 to provide an 
estimate of the total serious injury and mortality of central North 
Pacific humpback whales. The heading ``Hawaii summer feeding area 
unknown'' in Table 43 is misleading and has been updated. It is not 
known whether the summer feeding area for these individuals is the 
northern portion or the southeast portion of Alaska, but it is quite 
certain that humpback whales in Hawaii are part of the central North 
Pacific stock. Because it is not known whether these animals summer 
regularly in the northern portion or the southeast portion of Alaska, 
the mortalities are assessed as if they came from either portion. Also, 
see response to Comment 14.
    Comment 58: The discussion of Nmin for the western North Pacific 
stock of humpback whales states that Nminis conservative because the 
Nmin is 367 animals, yet the results of summer surveys in the Bering 
Sea indicate the presence of over 1000 animals.
    Response: The abundance estimate on which the Nmin was based is 
from the waters off Japan, where the western stock does not mix with 
other stocks. The estimate of 1000 humpback whales in the Bering Sea 
reflects a count of animals from both the western and central stocks. 
The Nmin value of 367 is the most appropriate Nmin at this time and 
will be updated when the results of recent humpback whale research are 
available. Comparisons to the estimate of 1,000 humpback whales in the 
Bering Sea have been struck from the SAR as this refers to a mixed-
stock abundance estimate.
    Comment 59: The western humpback whale stock has increased 7 
percent annually, providing evidence that the NMFS estimates are low 
and should be increased.
    Response: The reported 7-percent increase was estimated for the 
Central North Pacific rather than the Western North Pacific stock of 
humpback whales. There is insufficient information available to 
estimated the trend of the Western North Pacific stock of humpback 
whales. Accordingly, there is no basis to increase the abundance 
estimate for the Western North Pacific stock.
    Comment 60: The SAR for the western stock of Steller sea lions 
includes the same types of inaccuracies identified in other SARs. For 
example, the estimated mortality for 5 years for the BSAI flatfish 
trawl fishery is 14 animals over the 5 year period. The average is 2.8 
yet the NMFS chart asserts the mean annual mortality is 3.35. There are 
similar mathematical discrepancies in virtually every computation.
    Response: The mean annual mortality rates based on observer data 
presented in the SARs are calculated using a stratified model and 
pooled effort. Thus, the estimated annual mortality rates for a 
specific 5-year period cannot be calculated simply by adding the 
estimated mortality levels for each year and dividing by five.
    Comment 61: The SAR for the western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions 
asserts that Nmin is 38,513. The SAR also states

[[Page 26349]]

that this estimate excludes the number of Steller sea lions in Russia, 
which are technically part of this stock. Until these are designated 
officially as a separate stock, NMFS cannot exclude these from the PBR 
level.
    Response: The commenter is correct that the western stock of 
Steller sea lions, as currently described, does include Steller sea 
lions in Russia and does not include counts from Russia. Counts at 
Russian sites have not been included in the SAR for three reasons: (1) 
It is consistent with the guidelines for developing the SARs, which 
state that, for a non-migratory situation, the PBR level should be 
calculated based on the abundance of the stock residing in U.S. waters, 
(2) the methods for counting Steller sea lions are not consistent 
between countries, and (3) available information, which will soon be 
published in peer reviewed literature, indicates that there is a 
decisive stock boundary just west of the Commander Islands, such that 
the animals found on the Commander Islands would belong to the same 
stock as the animals on the Aleutian Islands. Accordingly, NMFS has 
been basing management decisions to conserve Steller sea lions by 
focusing on the dynamics of Steller sea lions occurring in U.S. waters. 
NMFS will consider formal separation of the western stock of Steller 
sea lions in the 2006 SARs.
    Comment 62: The SAR for the western stock of Steller sea lions 
states that 2.2 percent of all interactions between fisheries in the 
Gulf of Alaska and sea lions are with California sea lions. Despite 
this, NMFS counted every interaction with a sea lion as a Steller sea 
lion interaction. The overall serious injury/mortality rate should be 
reduced by 2.2 percent to account for the proportion that involves 
California sea lions.
    Response: The statement in the SAR refers to the frequency of 
logbook reports of California sea lions. Because California sea lions 
can be confused with Steller sea lions and because California sea lions 
are extremely rare in Alaska, logbook reports of California sea lions 
in Alaska are assumed to be erroneous, and all ``sea lions'' are 
counted as Steller sea lions. Fishery observers are trained to 
differentiate between California sea lions and Steller sea lions. 
Modifications to observer data to account for possible confusion by 
untrained personnel submitting logbook reports culd underestimate 
mortality and serious injury of Steller sea lions.
    Comment 63: The SAR for western Steller sea lions uses information 
from an observer program in 1990-91 to provide an estimate of mortality 
in the Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet fishery. NMFS should 
place observers to monitor this fishery to provide more up-to-date 
information on take levels.
    Response: NMFS has a plan to rotate an observer program among 
different Alaska state fisheries with known, moderate levels of marine 
mammal bycatch. Current resources limit observer effort to a single 
fishery each year. At this rate, it will take over 20 years to observe 
all state fisheries in Alaska with a documented level of take. In 2006 
and 2007, the Yakutat set and drift gillnet fisheries will be observed. 
It is not yet known what the observer program priorities will be for 
2008. NMFS will consider this recommendation, along with others, in 
setting priorities for future observer programs.

Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports

    Comment 64: For gray seal, Western North Atlantic stock, the report 
indicates the recovery factor for this stock is 1.0 although the status 
of the population is unknown. A recovery factor of 1.0 may be 
appropriate, given that the stock seems to be increasing in U.S. 
waters; however, if NMFS is not confident that the stock is increasing, 
then the recovery factor should be 0.5, the default value for stocks of 
unknown status.
    Response: The gray seal population is increasing in U.S. waters. 
This conclusion is based on aerial survey counts of pupping colonies 
off the coasts of Maine and Massachusetts and increases in the 
``summer'' population located in eastern Nantucket Sound.
    Comment 65: For harbor seal, Western North Atlantic stock, the 1997 
abundance estimate provided in the text (30,617) does not match the 
estimate provide in Table 1 (30,990). The report also mentions recent 
tagging efforts but provides no findings.
    Response: Typographical errors have been corrected. The 1997 
abundance estimate (31,078) from the Gilbert et al., 2005 publication 
in Marine Mammal Science has been inserted into the report. A brief 
summary of 2001 radio tagging, which was used to obtain the 2001 survey 
correction factor, has been included into the report. Detailed tagging 
information is contained in another manuscript (Waring et al., 
Northeastern Naturalist, in press) cited in the 2005 SAR.
    Comment 66: For fin whales, Western North Atlantic stock, the 
estimated mortality of 1.4 is not less than 10 percent of PBR (4.7); 
therefore, the level of mortality and serious injury is not approaching 
the Zero Mortality Rate Goal (ZMRG).
    Response: The report has been revised to note that mortality and 
serious injury is not considered insignificant and approaching a zero 
mortality and serious injury rate.
    Comment 67: For minke whale, Canadian east coast stock, it is not 
clear how the 1995 takes incidental to the pelagic gillnet fishery were 
estimated with a Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 0; this would seem 
possible only if NMFS had 100 percent observer coverage for that 
fishery in 1995.
    Response: Observer coverage on the pelagic gillnet fishery in 1995 
was 99 percent. NMFS, therefore, considers the observed mortalities and 
serious injuries to be an enumeration rather than a sample.
    Comment 68: For long-finned pilot whale, Western North Atlantic 
stock, the data from the Kingsley and Reeves (1998) survey are not 
shown in Table 1 although the text suggests otherwise. As mentioned 
above for short-finned pilot whales, NMFS should consider increasing 
the observer coverage within the mid-Atlantic groundfish trawl fishery 
to reduce the variability in take estimates and clarify the potential 
impact of this fishery on pilot whales.
    Response: The 1995 data are not presented in Table 1 because they 
are older than 8 years. The observer coverage Mid-Atlantic trawl 
fisheries has increased over the last few years, although the coverage 
is higher in the NE than in the Mid-Atlantic for some trawl fisheries. 
The higher coverage levels will be reported in the 2006 SAR.
    Comment 69: For white-sided dolphin, Western North Atlantic stock, 
the observed mortality in the bottom trawl fishery in 2003 was 
approximately 10 times higher than in other recent years, suggesting a 
potential problem for white-sided dolphins. Once the total mortality is 
estimated for 2003, it is very likely that the estimate will exceed the 
PBR for this stock. To address this concern, the mortality estimates 
for 2002, 2003, and the annual average mortality from 1999-2003 should 
be calculated. NMFS also should consider increasing the observer 
coverage within the mid-Atlantic groundfish trawl fishery, which would 
help clarify the impact of this fishery on pilot whales.
    Response: Updated mortality estimates for white-sided dolphins in 
the mid-water and bottom trawl fisheries will be included in the 2006 
draft SAR. The observer coverage in the NE and Mid-Atlantic trawl 
fisheries has increased over the last few years, although the coverage 
is higher in the NE than in the Mid-Atlantic for some

[[Page 26350]]

trawl fisheries. The higher coverage levels will also be reported in 
the 2006 SAR.
    Comment 70: For common dolphin, Western North Atlantic stock, the 
text indicates that the joint surveys overlapped spatially (from North 
Carolina to Maryland). The text should describe how the surveys were 
designed to avoid double-counting animals.
    Response: The text has been revised t clarify that there was no 
spatial overlap in the surveys. The shipboard surveys covered separate 
geographic blocks in shelf break and slope waters. The aerial component 
of the northern survey extended to North Carolina, but the aircraft 
covered continental shelf habitat rather than shelf edge and deeper 
waters, which were surveyed by vessel in the southern effort.
    Comment 71: For harbor porpoise, Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock, 
the estimated takes of 2,100-2,500 harbor porpoises in the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence gillnet fishery are worrisome, even if the estimates are 
unreliable. If the estimates are even close to accurate, they indicate 
a serious problem for harbor porpoise. It is not clear whether these 
estimates or any information from this fishery are included in the 
mortality estimate for the stock.
    Response: The harbor porpoises in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are 
considered to be a different stock from the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy 
stock, as is documented from genetic studies. Therefore, the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence takes are not included in the mortality estimate for the 
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock.
    Comment 72: For all Southeast Atlantic stocks, the reports should 
provide context for evidence of human interactions, particularly in 
cases with no indication of human interactions for stranded animals. 
For example, the reports should indicate how many stranded animals were 
too decomposed to make an assessment. The report on the western North 
Atlantic coastal morphotype stocks of bottlenose dolphins provides 
details of this sort.
    Response: These details will be included in affected SARs beginning 
with the 2006 SAR.
    Comment 73: The reports should indicate how many, if any, stranded 
bottlenose dolphins were coastal or offshore morphotypes and how many 
could not be identified as to morphotype.
    Response: Determination of morphotype (based upon genetic analysis 
of tissue samples) is not routinely done throughout the range of this 
stock (i.e. the Atlantic coast) nor consistently through time. This 
constraint is noted in the text preceeding Table 4. NMFS is working 
with our partners in the stranding network to improve collection of 
tissue samples from all stranded bottlenose dolphin carcasses; however, 
analyses of of the samples (several hundred per year), is limited by 
available resources.
    Comment 74: For bottlenose dolphin, Western North Atlantic coastal 
morphotype stocks, the CVs for population estimates are substantially 
greater than one, ranging from 15 to 111. If the estimates are truly 
that imprecise, then they are virtually meaningless and should not be 
reported. The reports should provide the total estimated mortality for 
each fishery, for all fisheries combined, and for each management unit. 
That information is necessary to assess the mortality with respect to 
PBR for each management unit.
    Response: In the draft SAR, the CVs were reported as a percentage 
(that is, CV * 100). For example, a value of 15 (percent) reported in 
the draft is actually a CV of 0.15 when written as a proportion. The 
CVs reported in Table 1 are now reported as proportions to be 
consistent with other SARs. Tables 2 and 3, in combination, accomplish 
the goal of providing estimated mortality for each fishery, all 
fisheries combined, and for each management unit, due to the spatial 
segregation of the fisheries for which there are available bycatch 
estimates. The mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery affects only the 
Northern Migratory stock, the Southern North Carolina stock, and the 
Winter Mixed stocks. The shark drift gillnet fishery affects only the 
Northern Florida and Central Florida stocks. Therefore the tables, as 
presented, document total estimated serious injury and mortality for 
each stock.
    Comment 75: In the pygmy sperm whale (Kogia sima), Western North 
Atlantic, report, NMFS estimates that six Kogia sp. were taken in the 
pelagic longline fishery, which is twice the PBR (3) for the two 
species combined, suggesting that both species should be strategic. 
Currently, dwarf sperm whales are not considered strategic, and no 
takes of any Kogia sp. are listed in the dwarf sperm whale report.
    Response: Pygmy sperm whales, identified to species, were caught by 
the pelagic long-line fleet in 1999-2000, as reported. It is 
appropriate to assign all these takes to this species, as opposed to 
splitting it among the two species, dwarf- and pygmy sperm whales 
because none of the latter were reported in the bycatch. This will be 
clarified in future reports.
    Comment 76: NMFS estimates that 228 pilot whales were taken in 1999 
incidental to the mid-Atlantic groundfish trawl fishery and zero whales 
were taken in other years. Low observer coverage in this fishery likely 
contributed to the large variability in annual estimates, but the 
possibility that the true annual take may be closer to 228 than to 0 
merits serious concern. The Service should consider increasing the 
observer coverage within the mid-Atlantic groundfish trawl fishery.
    Response: The observer coverage in the NE and Mid-Atlantic trawl 
fisheries has increased over the last few years although the coverage 
is higher in the NE than in the Mid-Atlantic for some trawl fisheries. 
Those coverage levels and the information obtained will be reported in 
the 2006 SAR.
    Comment 77: NMFS should provide information regarding which 
fisheries are monitored in the Gulf of Mexico, similar to the summaries 
provided for other regions. Based on interactions described in the Gulf 
of Mexico SARs, menhaden, gillnet and longline fisheries should be 
monitored closely.
    Response: Appendix III, Part B includes information on fisheries 
operating in the Gulf of Mexico and the associated observer programs. 
NMFS administers a mandatory observer program for the U.S. Atlantic 
Large Pelagic Longline Fishery. The program has been in place since 
1992 and randomly allocates observer effort over eleven geographic 
fishing areas proportional to total reported effort in each area and 
quarter. Observer coverage levels are mandated under the Highly 
Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. The Southeastern Shrimp 
Otter Trawl Fishery Observer Program is a voluntary program 
administered by NMFS in cooperation with the Gulf and South Atlantic 
Fisheries Foundation. The program is funding and project dependent; 
therefore, observer coverage may not be randomly allocated across the 
fishery. Fisheries interactions are reported in Table 2 of each SAR.
    Comment 78: For bottlenose dolphin, Northern Gulf of Mexico 
continental shelf stock, the scientific support for defining this 
management unit is not clear from the report, which suggests that 
dolphins on the continental shelf may include a mix of coastal and 
offshore stocks of dolphins.
    Response: The stock structure for the northern Gulf of Mexico 
bottlenose dolphins has not been revised since its inception in 1995. 
This stock structure was based on assumptions concerning oceanography 
or habitat and on analogy with biological studies in and near

[[Page 26351]]

Sarasota, FL. An expert panel reviewed this stock structure in 2000 and 
recommended retaining the current stock structure until there is 
scientific support for changing it.
    Comment 79: At least one false killer whale, Gulf of Mexico stock, 
was killed as a result of human interactions (the 1999 stranding) 
within the 1999-2003 period evaluated in the report, resulting in at 
least 0.2 takes/year. If that observed rate is adjusted to account for 
the likelihood that stranding records underestimate actual takes, the 
rate could exceed 10 percent of PBR (0.61). Therefore, it seems 
inappropriate to conclude that false killer whale takes are approaching 
the ZMRG.
    Response: NMFS agrees that incidental mortality of this stock may 
be underestimated and that the conclusion may be incorrect. NMFS and 
the appropriate SRG jointly evaluate SARs prior to release for public 
review and comment and did so in this case. NMFS and the SRG will 
evaluate the appropriateness of the conclusion at the next meeting 
(currently scheduled in January 2007), and, if necessary, NMFS would 
alter the conclusion in the next revision of the affected SAR.
    Comment 80: The reports for beaked whale stocks in the Gulf of 
Mexico should be revised to clarify the relationship of the various 
population estimates, particularly the estimate for unidentified 
Ziphiids. For example, it seems that the total abundance of all beaked 
whales would be the sum of the estimates for Cuvier's beaked whales 
(95), Mesoplodon sp. (106), and unidentified Ziphiids (146), or 347 
total beaked whales. Similarly, the total abundance of Cuvier's beaked 
whales could be as large as the sum of the estimates for Cuvier's 
beaked whales. The reader can infer the relationships, but minor text 
edits would provide clarity.
    Response: The Gulf of Mexico SARs will be modified in the 2006 SAR 
for consistency with the Atlantic U.S. coast SARs, to include combined 
estimates of undifferentiated beaked whales.
    Comment 81: For pygmy Sperm whale, Northern Gulf of Mexico stock, 
the report should indicate whether any stranding showed evidence of 
human interactions.
    Response: The report has been revised to include the number of 
strandings with evidence of human interaction.

Comments on Pacific Regional Reports

California Harbor Seal
    Comment 82: Correction factors for harbor seal haulout behavior 
should be standardized throughout NMFS. The Commission also mentioned 
the desirability of having satellite or VHF radio tagged seal studies 
used to determine haulout correction factors for aerial surveys.
    Response: Correction factors for California harbor seal counts were 
specifically developed for surveys where counts are made during the 
peak molt season. In other regions, harbor seal counts are made during 
peak pupping season, and the correction factors used for those counts 
reflect the specific count methodology used. The time series of 
California harbor seal counts reflects counts during peak molt and 
remain consistent with past years for the purpose of not introducing 
bias into the trend data. Correction factors based on VHF radio tagging 
are being developed by Dr. Jim Harvey at Moss Landing Marine 
Laboratories in California. Some of the data used in these correction 
factors were collected in tandem with harbor seal aerial surveys 
conducted by NMFS in 2004.
    Comment 83: Figure 3, which shows annual net productivity and a 
non-significant regression on these data since 1982, should be removed.
    Response: NMFS will keep the figure in the current SAR for this 
stock, as the data, though not significant, are still important in 
demonstrating how annual variability in net production can vary widely 
even for a well-studied stock.
    Comment 84: It was not clear if the seal shootings mentioned in the 
draft SAR were seals that were shot at sea and drifted to shore or 
whether they were shot while ashore. Such shooting is evidence for the 
need of increased enforcement.
    Response: It is difficult to determine the geographic origin of 
shootings in harbor seals (or other marine mammals), as carcasses are 
often decomposed, and it is unclear how long a carcass may have been on 
the beach. NMFS agrees that increased enforcement would benefit the 
conservation of marine mammals and other living marine resources. When 
additional resources are available, NMFS will expand enforcement 
efforts along with other aspects of marine mammal conservation.
    Comment 85: Observers should be placed in the ``large mesh drift 
gillnet fishery'' that takes harbor seals.
    Response: The comment actually refers to the small mesh set gillnet 
fishery for halibut and angel shark. NMFS agrees that having regular 
observer coverage in many fisheries would enhance the ability to assess 
the status of marine mammals (see response to Comment 9 regarding a 
requirements plan for protected species stock assessment); when 
resources are available to support such observers, NMFS will place them 
in the fishery.
    Comment 86: The report for Southern Resident Killer Whales should 
include information about the population viability analyses that were 
conducted to support the proposal to list the stock as threatened.
    Response: The analyses are described in full in the reports of the 
status reviews for this stock of killer whales (one in 2002 and a 
second in 2004); these reports are cited in the SAR. The purpose of the 
SAR is to present a brief summary of the status of the stock with 
emphasis on abundance, trend, human-caused mortality and serious 
injury, and status. Each report contains an extensive list of 
literature cited to guide interested readers to the details supporting 
the text in the SAR. In this case, interested readers may read the 
status review for a discussion of the analyses used in assessing the 
``species'' status under the ESA. The reports of the status reviews are 
available on the Internet at the following address: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov, under the tabs, ``Marine Mammals'' and ``Killer 
Whales''.

    Dated: April 28, 2006.
Donna Wieting,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6-6766 Filed 5-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S